F
Feanor2
Guest
“Hey, people die from all sorts of things. This is just like a year with a bad flu”
Something like that.
Something like that.
Trump offers denial and delusion as pandemic crisis overtakes his presidency
- Status
F
Feanor2
Guest
Yes- I’ll do it. Do you feel FOX , breitbart, et al. are more reliable places to get your news than CNN?
A
Abrosz
Guest
Yes, that is unfortunately possible. And sure enough he would produce a new list of actions to complain about. But there are signs that it will not happen - quite promising signs. Even republicans are turning away from him. Of course you will call them RINO-s. What else in new? If someone does not genuflect in front of the Trump-deity, they cease to be true republicans. Bah!
H
Horton
Guest
Once again, you (the collective you) cannot defend CNN, all you can do is turn around and make a completely unfounded accusation based on two posts. But I guess in your mind anyone who isn’t a left wing liberal must be a white supremacist.
But CNN doesn’t just report on what President Trump does or tweets, they misreport most of it to make it fit the agenda they want it to fit.
Yes, I do. I think most major news outlets are better sources than CNN. So why do you believe CNN is a reliable source of news?
This is very offensive.
J
JapaneseKappa
Guest
There are hierarchies of news quality. CNN is not at the top, the NYT for example, is much higher quality. Our argument is NOT that CNN should be believed uncritically. My argument was that there are plenty of far more egregiously fake news posted on here regularly, and that CNN represents a step up in truthfulness from sites like Frontpage Magazine, or Breitbart.
F
Feanor2
Guest
It’s pretty simple. CNN is the FOX for the left. They both have pretty obvious bias and appeal to their viewers
Breitbart is just garbage but they too appeal to a certain segment of the population
Breitbart is just garbage but they too appeal to a certain segment of the population
Last edited:
C
Culter
Guest
An otherwise healthy person attended a party and died? Where?
C
Culter
Guest
Isn’t this what Cuomo said? He said that after people criticized his nursing home policy.
R
Regular_Atheist
Guest
Here in the UK a teenage boy with no previous conditions died of it. From what I understand it’s thought that certain people might just be more predisposed to suffering it badly, essentially as a product of genetics, regardless of how healthy they are.
P
ProVobis
Guest
I don’t know. Was CNN even around in 1990?
Barbara Walters Fans Resurface Trump Interview From 1990 Where President Is Called Out On His ‘BS’
Thirty years ago, Barbara Walters destroyed Donald Trump in an interview about his failed businesses, shutting him down when he complained about how the press treats him ‘unfairly.’
hollywoodlife.com
Last edited:
M
Mister_Friscus
Guest
How is Trump stating the massive differences between he and Biden a bad thing? It’s quite accurate.
M
Mister_Friscus
Guest
It’s sadly a true statement. It’s telling to note which deaths we as a society decide to stand against and which we accept… and we all accept death, no amount of virtue signaling will cover that. We accept the massive amounts of death from cars for the convenience and economic impact they make. We accept the tripling of suicides that were predicted and occurred from massive unemployment and shutdown to avoid “Killing Grandma”.
The issue is to define ratios. How much death is enough to shut down society and change things? The standards are all over the place. 10-15 unarmed blacks die a year at the hands of police, and we need to completely tear down and defund the system. Likewise, it’s statistically nearly non-existent for children to die from COVID, It’s like the 99.9999 percentile. Yet we freak out and worry that they’ll die going to schools, not to mention ignoring the science of how they don’t get the virus nearly as much as adults due to lacking cellular attachment points which largely haven’t fully developed yet. But, If this astronomically low number of deaths constitutes this type of reaction, we need to fight against and outlaw most things in our nation.
Of course, we don’t do that, these are merely political ploys.
The issue is to define ratios. How much death is enough to shut down society and change things? The standards are all over the place. 10-15 unarmed blacks die a year at the hands of police, and we need to completely tear down and defund the system. Likewise, it’s statistically nearly non-existent for children to die from COVID, It’s like the 99.9999 percentile. Yet we freak out and worry that they’ll die going to schools, not to mention ignoring the science of how they don’t get the virus nearly as much as adults due to lacking cellular attachment points which largely haven’t fully developed yet. But, If this astronomically low number of deaths constitutes this type of reaction, we need to fight against and outlaw most things in our nation.
Of course, we don’t do that, these are merely political ploys.
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
We do no such thing. We have instituted a vast array of safety standards in cars to combat the death toll. So that analogy is a fail.
We do not. We invest in mental health services and economic aid during this time of difficulty. So that analogy is also a fail.
That is a strawman, because wearing masks in supermarkets is hardly equivalent to “shutting down society.”
Another strawman. What is being proposed is to retarget the funding to put more emphasis on community development. We will still have a police force, but more appropriate to their proper non-militarized role.
When citing science one does not understand one is very likely to draw the wrong conclusions, as we see here.
A nonsense statistic meant to convey an emotion more than a scientific fact.
Another phrase with more emotional content than scientific.
M
Mister_Friscus
Guest
If cars kill large numbers year after year, despite doing our best to be safe, we are accepting the death that is guaranteed to happen. And we’re not monsters for doing so, there’s a ratio involved. Life is full of risk reward. This concept is just lost on those who want to act as if any death from COVID is absolutely and completely unacceptable. You can accept or not accept it, it’s a pandemic that is here and will kill people. Acting shocked if people die is just political theater.
Most people are fine with social distancing measures and wearing masks. Suggesting that mandatory mask wearing at all times is an overstepping does not make one some anti-mask warrior. Most mandatory mask orders or shutdown orders don’t align with the data… there are clearly other factors at play. These orders are just promulgated to pad a politician’s record to prove that they took drastic measures, and for the public to feel protected even if they aren’t anymore than if we hadn’t acted.
Meanwhile, unemployment causes a rise in suicides. We know this, it happens every time. So, when we enact policy that causes mass unemployment, we are accepting the suicide deaths that we know will occur due to the psychological turmoil unemployment has on humans. Just because we act to fight it is a non-sequitor. You’re grasping at straws, but you accept the death. Own it.
Most people are fine with social distancing measures and wearing masks. Suggesting that mandatory mask wearing at all times is an overstepping does not make one some anti-mask warrior. Most mandatory mask orders or shutdown orders don’t align with the data… there are clearly other factors at play. These orders are just promulgated to pad a politician’s record to prove that they took drastic measures, and for the public to feel protected even if they aren’t anymore than if we hadn’t acted.
Meanwhile, unemployment causes a rise in suicides. We know this, it happens every time. So, when we enact policy that causes mass unemployment, we are accepting the suicide deaths that we know will occur due to the psychological turmoil unemployment has on humans. Just because we act to fight it is a non-sequitor. You’re grasping at straws, but you accept the death. Own it.
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
I see no such people in this forum, or among the public health officials, so I declare that another straw man.
Another straw man, because there are no rules that say wear a mask all the time. Better be careful. With so many straw men standing around it is becoming a fire hazzard.
Typical denigration of the motives of dedicated public servants - without any support.
As I said, we are taking measures to reduce suicides. But as you said, one much consider the cost/benefit ratio.
P
PaulinVA
Guest
The Rose Garden is not the proper venue for a campaign event. It never has been.
M
Mister_Friscus
Guest
That’s fine, you’re free to critique the selection of venue of a speech. But that’s not what we’re talking about. It’s about issuing such strongly negative language to describe a mere truth and obvious reality. Based on their known stances, Trump and Biden are VERY different. Notice what CNN used, “delusion”… this isn’t reporting, it’s Op-Ed political activism, and laughable. They so obviously cannot act professionally and report without massive emotional and Political bias. It is like listening to toddlers.
Last edited:
P
PaulinVA
Guest
Just curious.
In a hypothetical, if a person really is delusional, is it proper for a journalist that state that?
Just trying to find out if you want “delusional” removed from the journalistic lexicon or you just don’t want Trump referred to as such.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Maybe you missed the fact that this was not labelled as news reporting in the first place. It was labelled as “analysis”. When you see something presented as “analysis” you should expect opinion. Your criticism is misplaced.
- Status